Wolf Blitzer Questions How Hasan's Lawyer Can Represent 'Someone Accused of Mass Murder'

[my future me]

Run time: 05:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WLvVmQvfE   Posted on YouTube: November 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 13, 2009 By DU Member: my future me Views on DU: 1228

 
Malik Hasan's lawyer. Classily redresses Wolf Blitzer's two appeals to emotion. Truly poor showing by 'journalist' Wolf Blitzer.

[MadMaddie]

1. Blitzer prooves again that he is an idiot. Why does he still

have a show?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Did you see his Jeopardy performance?

This only confirms it - he IS an idiot.

[laughingliberal]

2. For crying out loud. Doesn' t he even watch TV?

Forget knowledge of the bill of rights. Anyone who watches a cop show knows, "you have the right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney..."

[tishaLA]

3. Wolf is just shameless.

He is so cavalier in his pooh-poohing of the Constitution.

[dballance]

4. What Part of Vigorous Defense Do They NOT Understand

So let's just take Hassan to the gallows. Why bother with a trial? In our system of justice every - EVERY - defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense. I respect and appreciate that this retired Col has the decency and the professionalism to represent Hassan.

If Hassan is found guilty (and I think he will be) then sentence him to whatever punishment is appropriate. But before then stop the stupidity and let justice take its course.

[Turbineguy]

5. What a maroon!

He should follow Lou Dobbs

[David Zephyr]

6. How could John Adams defend a British soldier? He was a profile in courage, that's how.

Wolf is an audience pandering pathetic piece of shit.

He cheerled that fucking war in Iraq more than any stooge at Fox News ever did.

Of all the media whores, no one pimped that fucking war more than Wolf Blitzer.

Dick Cheney should be sucking Wolf's dick for all the whoring he did for the Bush Administration.

Wolf Blitzer makes Judith Miller actually look good when it comes to Iraq.

[Piewhacket]

7. I was gonna yell at Blitzer (you know I can), but here he did right.

It might be shocking, but

Many people do not understand why we defend "obviously guilty" people.

They do not understand why the "obviously guilty" who are facing a "mountain
of evidence" are entitled to "rights" when they have so obviously
committed a heinous crime.

They do not understand how any person can "lower" themselves to defend such
people.

More shocking still... its not just butt-stupid freepers who are so clueless..
there are actually some of these folks right here in DU!
OMG! :scared:

Wolf handled the matter appropriately. The defense attorney here was allowed
to answer and explain fully. So he gets a pass.
Rupert will probably fire his ass for it.

[SusanaMontana41]

10. That's how I heard it, too.

I heard "Wolf" say many viewers wanted to know how a retired military officer blah blah blah could defend someone accused of mass murder. (Rough paraphrase.)

"Wolf" then asked the retired officer to explain to the viewers why.

I don't think "Wolf" is the greatest journalist in the world, but I also don't think he's so ignorant that he doesn't know the answer to that question. I do think some Americans are that ignorant.

Just my $.02.


edit: typo

[Piewhacket]

14. Exactly. Some Americans are ignorant of their civil rights and why we have them...

... or for some reason they pretend they are that ignorant.

For some people, fascists, Murdochs, and other such scum,
just don't believe other people should have "rights",
only "privileges", to be handed out by them.

Here Wolf was obviously told to ask the question in a sneering
provocative tone, then become argumentative and abusive
as the lawyer tried to answer.

Its how networks stir up controversy, position themselves on
the popular side of the issue, then treat each defense action with
contempt and derision. They do it all the time. Media circus.
Stir up the mob. Poison the jury pool on a case. They do it a lot.

One network starts it, usually Rupert's, and there is an
immediate "race to the bottom" with such tactics by other networks.
A race for ratings. A race for profit. ALL of the networks have done it.

The tactic is so corrosive to a fair trial that in Great Britain and other
places I think the practice is a serious crime. Not so in the US.
But it is still a repulsive and despicable practice.

Wolf asked the question, but obviously refused to do the rest with
such a distinguished lawyer. I've seen journalists, good journalists,
better than Wolf, fired for such a refusal. That's why I suggest Wolf's
performance review will be questioning whether he is really network material.

[JDPriestly]

8. Wolf Blitzer is an ignorant fool. I sometimes suspected that, but now

there is no question. Every American is entitled to a fair trial and a competent attorney. I have the impression that Hasan's attorney is a fair-minded, compassionate man who understands the complexity of guilt and innocence. It's never as simple as you might think. People do very strange things from compulsions we cannot understand.

Wolf Blitzer's comments could jeopardize Hasan's right to a fair trial. I am glad that Hasan's attorney reminded Blitzer of that fact.

[PatrynXX]

9. Um... there's this law Wolf....

even if you watch CSI you should know it wolf.

[newmac]

12. My morning oatmeal has more inquisitive spunk than Wolf.

CNN; get a real reporter...

[jberryhill]

13. Repeal the Sixth Amendment

Since the "rights" of speedy trial, counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and process for compelling appearance of witnesses ONLY apply to criminal defendants, then they are rights Americans obviously don't need.

[Piewhacket]

15. Not so fast...

lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Only repeal it for those who are objecting to
people having such rights.

That way, everybody wins.